Traditional Values Defined

[Said1]

No, the separation discussed by the Founders was regarding the establishment.

It took Scotus until 1952 to deal with it, using 'surprise' the 14th amendment, the reconstruction amendment and 'due process' which has been the basis of judicial activism.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254

I thought neither influenced the other in regards to establishment and laws?

 

[Annie]

I thought neither influenced the other in regards to establishment and laws?

which is 'neither'?

 

[Said1]

which is 'neither'?

Church. State.

 

[Annie]

I thought neither influenced the other in regards to establishment and laws?

I think maybe I get what you meant, I wrote that last one badly. The Founders wrote of separation, meaning they wanted to prohibit a state religion. Since the 1950's people act like they meant keeping religion separate from anything that has anything to do with government.

The Constitution, especially the first amendment, was worded carefully. The meant that Congress-not the states-was prohibited from enacting law that would establish a church for the country.

 

[Annie]

Church. State.

That the State-US-cannot establish a state religion. Nothing though should prohibit the free excercise of one's religion.

 

[Said1]

I think maybe I get what you meant, I wrote that last one badly. The Founders wrote of separation, meaning they wanted to prohibit a state religion. Since the 1950's people act like they meant keeping religion separate from anything that has anything to do with government.

The Constitution, especially the first amendment, was worded carefully. The meant that Congress-not the states-was prohibited from enacting law that would establish a church for the country.

I understand that much. I was expanding somewhat and not explaining properly myself. No biggie, I aim to confuse.

 

[MissileMan]

I think your problem is instead of reading what's there, you are allegedly "thinking" what the founding fathers meant, the crux of the leftwing, pseudo-intellectual argument.

From: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#3

In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.

How about an interpretation straight from the horse's mouth? Of course, for all I know, Jefferson was a left-wing, psedo-intellectual.

 

[Max Power]

The Constitution, especially the first amendment, was worded carefully. The meant that Congress-not the states-was prohibited from enacting law that would establish a church for the country.

So you believe that the first amendment prohibits Congress, but NOT THE STATES, from limiting free speech, freedom to assemble, and free exercise of religion?

 

[liberalogic]

If you try looking again, since you missed it the first time, the cut-n-paste I did of the First Amendment is correct. In repeating the first line, I left out a couple of words in haste, not to some nefarious purpose. Either way, it says the same thing, so I don't see where making an issue of it is relevant at all.

I think your problem is instead of reading what's there, you are allegedly "thinking" what the founding fathers meant, the crux of the leftwing, pseudo-intellectual argument.

Please present for us ignorant folk just exactly which law Congress has passed "respecting an establishment of religion."

My entire point was that no such laws have been created because the first amendment prohibits it. Yet again, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Not to call you ignorant, but why would I be the one to show you a law that I just claimed didn't exist?

 

[Annie]

So you believe that the first amendment prohibits Congress, but NOT THE STATES, from limiting free speech, freedom to assemble, and free exercise of religion?

No, see Art VI

 

[Max Power]

No, see Art VI

So, why do you believe this does this not apply to the establishment clause?

Seriously.

 

[Annie]

From: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#3



How about an interpretation straight from the horse's mouth? Of course, for all I know, Jefferson was a left-wing, psedo-intellectual.

Here's the letter, with original wording. You can find his final copy from the site. Note the date, post ratification. This is what I was referring to earlier, with using 'Founder's writings', for unless one looks at the entire correspondence or at least as much as can be found, it's easy to be misled:


http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

Library of Congress Icon

Library of Congress
Home Page

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Draft and Recently Discovered Text

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."]

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

 

[Gunny]

From: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#3



How about an interpretation straight from the horse's mouth? Of course, for all I know, Jefferson was a left-wing, psedo-intellectual.

One, I am not impressed with Thomas Jefferson. The more I read on him, the less so I am.

Second, what he wrote after the fact is irrelevant to what the Constitution states.

Third, I don't see Jefferson's statement as contradictory to the First Amendment.

The problem as I see it is those attempting to add their own translations of the First Amendment, to include using Thomas Jefferson's words that are not in the Constitution to suit their own political/religious agendas.

The fact is, Europe was plagued by governments overshadowed by the Catholic Church, or the Church of England. The intent of the First Amendment is pretty-damned clear -- to keep a "Church" -- a specific religion -- from controlling the government. And I agree with that. You'd probably find most Christians do.

What I don't agree with is the extremist position that any religious emblem/artifact residing on public property is in violation of the First Amendment.

Decorations/emblems that commemorate our society/culture as a whole, do NOT establish a religion.

 

[Bonnie]

GunnyL The fact is, Europe was plagued by governments overshadowed by the Catholic Church, or the Church of England. The intent of the First Amendment is pretty-damned clear -- to keep a "Church" -- a specific religion -- from controlling the government. And I agree with that. You'd probably find most Christians do.

What I don't agree with is the extremist position that any religious emblem/artifact residing on public property is in violation of the First Amendment.

Decorations/emblems that commemorate our society/culture as a whole, do NOT establish a religion.

 

[MissileMan]

It wasn't just churches on foreign soil that made it abundantly clear that government and religion should remain separate. There was plenty of persecution occurring in the pre-constitutional colonies.

I find it difficult to believe that you summarily dismiss a post-writing declaration of intent by one of the authors of the document. If his can't be considered an expert opinion on the intent, noone's can.

What I don't agree with is the extremist position that any religious emblem/artifact residing on public property is in violation of the First Amendment.
Decorations/emblems that commemorate our society/culture as a whole, do NOT establish a religion.

I agree with you on this. But unless these government buildings are also going to exhibit the religious symbols of the minorities, and I'm only talking about new exhibits not ones that have been in place for decades, then they are discriminatory and unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

it's so hard for Christians to accept that it's offensive--mildly offensive, but truly offensive--for religion to appear in public contexts, e.g. LuvRPgirl's example of saying "God Bless You" at a graduation ceremony.

Just do the thought experiment: Imagine you lived in a multicultural corner of America. Would you be happy if there were a Hare Krishna message in the middle of a graduation ceremony? If praise was given to Allah? If Hammurabi's code was erected on the public green?

It's very hard to see how the majority religion is being harmed by being asked to stay not in a closet, as LuvRPgirl puts it, but anywhere you wish in your life--except a public, secular sphere where we want to make sure all religions--and those with no religion--feel equally welcome.

Mariner.

Your joking right?

The constitution doesnt guarantee that people wont be offended.

If the majority of people where I lived were Hari Krisna, then I wouldnt have any problem at all if they gave a message in the middle of the ceremony. Liberals say "respect all cultures" except Christian.

Whether its harmed or not is irrelevant. IT ISNT AND shouldnt be against the law

 

[LuvRPgrl]

But discriminatory, yes, and therefore unconstitutional.





I'm talking equal rights, equal protection,equal consideration whether in the majority or minority, not election results. Being in the majority doesn't give you special rights...being in the minority shouldn't either.

equal consideration? whoa, thats a new one.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

When you put obviously bullshit statements like this in a reply, how can you expect anyone to take anything you write seriously?

You cant understand the difference between laws that punish, and laws that give benefits? Well, no wonder you think its bullshit.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

so "no law respecting the establishment of religion" means no laws will be based on religion.

Thats very liberal, but not at all logical.

 

[MissileMan]

equal consideration? whoa, thats a new one.

Don't get out much?